Posted on 03/21/2007 9:14:58 AM PDT by Frank Sheed
A friend recently quipped to me that if Americans were as good at the “war on terror” as we are in our “war on common sense,” the world would be a much safer place. He was talking about our country’s increasingly confused attitudes toward sex.
Last week offered a good example. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, said that “I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well-served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.”
Note that Pace did not say that, “homosexual persons are evil.” He said that homosexual acts are wrong. And of course he’s right. We might question the general’s choice to comment in the context he did, but not his content. He simply stated the Western moral tradition. We should respect his courage for saying it. Every human being has an inalienable dignity as an image of God. But as part of that dignity, we also have free will, and our choices — our behaviors — create wholeness or havoc around us, depending on their moral content.
Our sexual behavior is never merely a “private” matter. Human sexuality is deeply linked to issues of identity, fertility and new life. Our sexual behavior always has social implications because it directly or indirectly impacts others. Therefore it helps shape the wider culture. This is not a uniquely Christian point of view. Most Americans clearly agree with Gen. Pace. The only thing strange about his remarks was the theatrical wave of shock they generated from critics. In fact, with the good exception of Sen. Sam Brownback and some others, many members of Congress scrambled to criticize Gen. Pace — despite the moral beliefs of the people who elected them.
The bickering over Gen. Pace is just an icon of wider problems. The sexual confusion at the top of U.S. society now has an echo in every corner of American life. Sexually transmitted disease, child sexual abuse, adult Internet predators, divorce, cohabitation and nearly every other indicator of a dysfunctional society stand at epidemic levels. But very few people want to name the biggest single environmental crisis we face: a multi-billion dollar pornography industry that pours garbage into our homes every day through the Web and other media.
Forty years ago, when steel mills pumped hundreds of tons of toxic waste each week into the Great Lakes — literally “killing” Lake Erie and damaging the health of tens of thousands of families — citizens got organized. They forced the mills to clean up or shut down. We need to do the same today. Citizens need to stop the pornography industry now — not out of some kind of Victorian prudery, but because pornography poisons the human heart, imagination and soul just as those steel mills once poisoned our air and water, only worse.
Pornography is never “innocent entertainment,” no matter how private it might seem. It turns human beings into objects. It coarsens our appetites. It darkens our ability to see real human beauty. It creates impossible expectations about sexual intimacy. It kills enduring romance and friendship between the sexes. And ultimately it’s a lie and a cheat. Pornography is a cheap, quick, empty copy of the real thing — the real joy of sexual intimacy shared by a man and woman who have joined their lives in a loving marriage.
In recent months, two Catholic bishops have begun some extraordinary work against pornography in their Midwest dioceses: Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph, Mo., and Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kan.
Bishop Finn’s excellent pastoral letter, “Blessed Are the Pure in Heart: The Dignity of the Human Person and the Dangers of Pornography,” has a wealth of good information about the scope of pornography, the damage it does and many practical tips to fighting it in our homes. Archbishop Naumann’s anti-pornography initiative, “As for Me and My House, We Will Serve the Lord,” includes a DVD and workbook with valuable resources for fighting pornography, teaching chastity and wholesome sexuality, and helping others who have been hurt by pornography addiction.
We can’t do much to fix the sexual confusion at the top of our society, beyond writing to our elected officials and demanding candidates who will advance our convictions when the time comes to vote. But we can do a lot about the poison in our homes and local communities. Pornography is poison. It should be controlled like any other toxic waste. And don’t be fooled. This isn’t “censorship.” It’s a matter of public health and common sense.
Bishop Finn’s pastoral letter can be found online at www.diocese-kcsj.org; click on “Bishop,” then on the pastoral letter. For information on Archbishop Naumann’s anti-pornography initiative, contact the Archdiocese of Kansas City, Kan., at 913-721-1097.
But I did not do that. Read what I wrote. I meant what I said, and said what I meant. You would be well advised NOT to assign any meaning to what I wrote which is not in that writing.
I believe the comment "Thanks for proving my point" is plain enough in the context of the post it was in response to.
Meantime, I have seen almost no actual disagreement with the substance of article ... merely crude remarks and ad hominem "arguments". That certainly qualifies as having one's knickers in a twist.
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
For it to prove your point "one" must be either a pornographer or a pornography user, correct?
And #34 appears to me to be an admission of just that. Case closed.
In that case what do we need to involve the government for? Your opinion is obviously the only one that counts. Let's just give 'em your phone number and they can go right to the source.
***********
Have you ever asked a priest for relationship or sexual advice? I haven't, but it's not the kind of thing I am likely to do, being the shy and retiring type.
I symphathize with the good Archbishop's plight and agree that we must do what we can to limit children's access to porn (VERY difficult in the internet age). That being said, as long as there are lonely men (and all men are lonely sometimes), there will be pornography, prostitution, etc.
When did I suggest government involvement? (Hint: I didn't. Ever.) I think social persuasion is much more likely to persuade folks not to wank over airbrushed pictures.
Your opinion is obviously the only one that counts.
Sadly, the gub'mint never listens to me ... Somehow, I will manage to get over the heartbreak.
He was good right up to the point where he wanted it regulated "like toxic waste". We need a federal porn bureaucracy like we need a hole in the head.
The good Archbishop does, and you seem quite in agreement with his views.
Hmmm ... somebody else said that, too.
I wonder who that could be?
I don't know, but apparently they have their knickers in a twist about it.
You're talking about apples and oranges.
Prohibition was the prohibiting of a permitted substance and one which, furthermore, had a long and positive history in human culture. That said, if you know anything about the 19th/early 20th century, it had obviously become a problem in the unrooted US culture of the time, so I can't say that Prohibition was necessarily a bad idea at the time. But it was unworkable, simply because there is nothing wrong with a bit of moderate consumption of alcohol and this has been part of human culture since the dawn of time.
On the other hand, pornography was never acceptable in the US, and has never been completely acceptable anywhere else (which is why even early 20th century French dirty old men had "secret" collections in their dresser drawers when they died!). Beautiful images of beautiful people are one thing; pictures of people doing disgusting things with animals, being tied up and beaten, or torturing children are an entirely different matter.
If the Archbishop gets his wish, everybody in the US and the world is going to have to ask themselves (a) exactly what are they watching and why are they watching it? and (b) is that the kind of person they want to be? Questions that need to be asked, IMHO.
What's interesting is that Lake Erie was cleaned up by Zebra Mussels. Seriously. I'm sure there's a message in there somehow ...
************
Interesting. Yet aren't zebra mussels considered a serious pest?
If it was cleaned up by some mussels, it appears the message is that the problem was not nearly as apocalyptic as it was made out to be.
Yep ... the little buggers breed like nobody's business, and being nonnative, nothing here eats them. They clog water intakes, cover boat hulls, and in some areas they actually filter the water too much, leaving no nutrients for native species. There are workarounds for some of this, but they're a mixed blessing. Or a mixed curse. I suppose it's a matter of perspective.
Apparently they make the water too clean for native species. How bizarre.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.